Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

R&D Collaboration with Uncertain Intellectual Property Rights

  • Published:
Review of Industrial Organization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Patent pendencies create uncertainty in research and development (R&D) collaboration, which can result in a threat of expropriation of unprotected knowledge, reduced bargaining power and enhanced search costs. We show that—depending of the type of collaboration partner and the size of the company—uncertain intellectual property rights (IPRs) lead to reduced collaboration between firms and can, hence, hinder knowledge production. This has implications for technology policy as R&D collaborations are exempt from antitrust legislation in order to increase R&D in the economy. We argue that a functional IPR system is needed for successful utilization of this policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It should also be noted that patent grants do not completely extinguish the risk of expropriation since protected inventions can be reengineered and invented around.

  2. This question was also part of the MIP survey in 2000 and 2004. However, we abstain from using this more recent data because the information on pending patents is added from EPO data and we want to avoid that our results are driven by reporting lags of the outcome of patent decisions: i.e., right-censoring of the patent data (see, e.g., Harhoff and Wagner 2009).

  3. Only 11.5 % of the firms in our sample of innovative firms in German manufacturing responded to the survey in both years.

  4. Note that firms can be involved in multiple types of R&D collaborations so that the fractions in Table 1 do not have to add up to the overall fraction of collaborating companies.

  5. The patent application and review procedure at the EPO involves several steps, which are briefly described in the “Appendix”.

  6. One could also argue that the patent stock variable could be a source of endogeneity in our models. We instrumented this variable with the firm’s patent stock over employment lagged by 5 years, the average patent stock over employment, and the average share of pending patents at the industry level. Rivers and Vuong (1988) tests cannot reject that the patent stock is exogenous in our regressions. Further, Staiger and Stock (1997) F-tests show that the instruments are not weak. Hence, we do not find evidence for an endogeneity problem for our patent stock variable.

  7. We conducted \(\chi ^{2}\)-tests for the null hypothesis that the effect of pending patents on collaborations with competitors is not different from their effect on vertical collaborations and on collaborations with universities. \(\chi ^{2}\)-tests reject the null hypothesis for the first case on the 10 % level. H0: competitor collaboration—university collaboration \(=\) 0; \(\chi ^{2}=3.26^*\); H0: competitor collaboration—vertical collaboration \(=\) 0; \(\chi ^{2}=2.08\).

  8. We conducted \(\chi ^{2}\)-tests for the null hypothesis that the effect of pending patents on collaborations with competitors is not different from their effect on vertical collaborations and on collaborations with universities for both subsamples. \(\chi ^{2}\)-tests reject the null hypothesis for the first hypothesis on the 10 % level for both subsamples. Small companies: H0: competitor collaboration—university collaboration \(=\) 0; \(\chi ^{2}= 0.84^*\); H0: competitor collaboration—vertical collaboration \(=\) 0; \(\chi ^{2}=2.16\). Large companies: H0: competitor collaboration—university collaboration \(=\) 0; \(\chi ^{2}=2.73^*\); H0: competitor collaboration—vertical collaboration \(=\) 0; \(\chi ^{2}=1.68\).

  9. Prior studies report more robust effects of both collaboration predictors (Cassiman and Veugelers 2002; Schmidt 2005). A potential explanation can be the difference in variables definition. Cassiman and Veugelers (2002) and Schmidt (2005) use a Likert scale variable that describes the importance of costs and risks as obstacles for innovation. We can only use a dummy variable for our sample.

  10. A more detailed description can be found, for example, in Harhoff and Wagner (2009).

  11. Note that unlike in the U.S. patent applicants at the EPO are not required to supply a list of prior art themselves.

References

  • Ahuja, G. (2000). The duality of collaboration: Inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 317–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amir, R., & Evstigneev, I. (2003). Noncooperative versus cooperative R&D with endogenous spillover rates. Games and Economic Behavior, 42, 184–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arora, A. (1995). Licensing tacit knowledge: Intellectual property rights and the market for know-how. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 4(1), 41–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Diederen, B., Lokshin, B., & Veugelers, R. (2004). Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22(8–9), 1237–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blind, K., Edler, J., Frietsch, R., & Schmoch, U. (2006). Motives to patent: Empirical evidence from Germany. Research Policy, 35, 655–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer, E., & Kleinknecht, A. (1999). Innovative output, and a firm’s propensity to patent. An exploration of CIS micro data. Research Policy, 28, 615–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2002). R&D cooperation and spillovers: Some empirical evidence from Belgium. American Economic Review, 92(4), 1169–1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., Perez-Castrillo, D., & Veugelers, R. (2004). Endogenizing know-how flows through the nature of R&D investments. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 20, 775–799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R. & Walsh, J. P. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. manufacturing firms patent (or not). NBER working paper, Cambridge, MA.

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of R&D. Economic Journal, 99(397), 569–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conti, A., Thursby, J. & Thursby, M. C. (2013). Patents as signals for startup financing. NBER working paper 19191, Cambridge, MA.

  • Czarnitzki, D., Hall, B. H. & Hottenrott, H. (2014). Patents as quality signal? The implications for financing constraints on R&D. NBER working paper no. 19947, Cambridge, MA.

  • Czarnitzki, D. (2005). Extent and evolution of the productivity deficiency in eastern Germany. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 24(2), 209–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Czarnitzki, D., & Kraft, K. (2006). R&D and firm performance in a transition economy. Kyklos, 59, 481–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Aspremont, C., & Jacquemin, A. (1988). Cooperative and non-cooperative R&D in duopoly with spillovers. American Economic Review, 78, 1133–1137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, B., & Eswaran, M. (1997). Technology trading coalitions in supergames. RAND Journal of Economics, 28(1), 135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gans, J. S., Hsu, D. H., & Stern, S. (2002). When does start-up innovation spur the gale of creative destruction? RAND Journal of Economics, 33, 571–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gans, J. S., Hsu, D. H., & Stern, S. (2008). The impact of uncertain intellectual property rights on the market for ideas: Evidence from patent grant delays. Management Science, 54(5), 982–997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z., & Mairesse, J. (1984). Productivity and R&D at the firm level. In Z. Griliches (Ed.), R&D, patents and productivity (pp. 339–374). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grimpe, C., & Hussinger, K. (2014). Pre-empted patents, infringed patents and firms’ participation in markets for technology. Research Policy, 43, 543–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guellec, D., & van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2007). The European patent system at the crossroad. In D. Guellec & B. van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie (Eds.), The economics of the European patent system (pp. 216–228). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Haeussler, C., Harhoff, D., & Mueller, E. (2008). The role of patents for VC financing, frontiers of entrepreneurship research 2008 (FER). MA, USA: Babson College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J., Cloodt, D., & van Kranenburg, H. (2005). Intellectual property rights and the governance of international R&D partnerships. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(2), 175–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36, 16–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff, D., Narin, F., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (1999). Citation frequency and the value of patented innovation. Review of Economics and Statistics, 81(3), 511–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff, D., & Wagner, S. (2009). The duration of patent examination at the European patent office. Management Science, 55(12), 1969–1984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellmann, T. (2007). The role of patents for bridging the science to market gap. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 63, 624–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (1998). Universities as a source of commercial technology. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), 119–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, D., & Ziedonis, R. H. (2008). Patents as quality signals for entrepreneurial ventures.In Academy of management best paper proceedings.

  • Jaffe, A. B. (1986). Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: Evidence from firms’ patents, profits, and market value. American Economic Review, 76(5), 984–1001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamien, M. I., Muller, E., & Zang, I. (1992). Research joint ventures and R&D cartels. American Economic Review, 82(5), 1293–1306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamien, M. E., & Zang, I. (2000). Meet me halfway: Research joint ventures and absorptive capacity. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 20, 747–774.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, M. (1986). An analysis of cooperative research and development. RAND Journal of Economics, 17(4), 527–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kesteloot, K., & Veugelers, R. (1995). Stable R&D cooperation with spillovers. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 4(4), 651–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B. (1998). Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 9, 319–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemley, M. A. (2001). Rational ignorance at the patent office. Northwestern University Law Review, 95(4), 1495–1532.

  • Martin, S. (1997). Public policies towards cooperation in research and development: The European Union, Japan, the United States. In W. Comanor, A. Goto, & L. Waverman (Eds.), Competition policy in the global economy (pp. 245–288). London, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2005). OSLO manual. Guidelines for collecting and interpreting innovation data. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2008). Compendium of patent statistics. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxley, J. E. (1999). Institutional environment and the mechanism of governance: The impact of intellectual property protection on the structure of inter-firm alliances. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 38(3), 283–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pisano, G. P. (1989). Using equity participation to support exchange: Evidence from the biotechnology industry. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 5(1), 109–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popp, D., Juhl, T. & Johnson, D. N. K. (2004). Time in purgatory: Examining the grant lag for U.S. patent applications. Topics in Economic Analysis & Policy 4(1), article 29.

  • Régibeau, P. & Rockett, K. (2007). Are more important patents approved more slowly and should they be? CEPR discussion paper 6178.

  • Rivers, D., & Vuong, Q. H. (1988). Limited information estimators and exogeneity tests for simultaneous probit models. Journal of Econometrics, 39, 347–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roeller, L.-H., Siebert, R., & Tombak, M. M. (2007). Why firms form (or do not) form RJVs. Economic Journal, 117(522), 1122–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, T. (2005). Knowledge flows and R&D co-operation: Firm-level evidence from Germany. ZEW discussion paper no. 05-22, Mannheim.

  • Shapiro, C., & Willig, R. D. (1990). On the antitrust treatment of production joint ventures. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(3), 113–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siebert, R., & von Graevenitz, G. (2010). Jostling for advantage: Licensing and entry into patent portfolio races. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 73(2), 225–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staiger, D., & Stock, J. H. (1997). Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica, 65, 557–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1981). The market for knowhow and the efficient international transfer of technology. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 458(1), 81–96.

  • Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1), 172–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trajtenberg, M. (2001). Innovation in Israel 1968–1997: A comparative analysis using patent data. Research Policy, 30, 363–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veugelers, R. (1998). Technological collaboration: An assessment of theoretical and empirical findings. De Economist, 149, 419–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the MIP team of the ZEW Mannheim for providing the survey data and to Thorsten Doherr for his help in data processing and for providing his text field search engine. Further, we acknowledge helpful comments and discussions at the Intertic Conference on Competition Policy and Property Rights (Milan), the Pacific Rim Innovation Conference (Melbourne), and the EARIE 2010 (Istanbul).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Managerial Economics, Strategy and Innovation, KU Leuven, Naamsestraat 69, 3000, Leuven, Belgium

    Dirk Czarnitzki, Katrin Hussinger & Cédric Schneider

  2. Center for R&D Monitoring (ECOOM), KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Dirk Czarnitzki

  3. Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW), Mannheim, Germany

    Dirk Czarnitzki & Katrin Hussinger

  4. Centre for Research in Economics and Management (CREA), University of Luxembourg, 162 Avenue de la Faïencerie, 1511, Luxembourg, Luxembourg

    Katrin Hussinger

  5. Department of Economics and CEBR, Copenhagen Business School, Porcelænshaven 16a, 2000, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Cédric Schneider

Authors
  1. Dirk Czarnitzki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katrin Hussinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cédric Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katrin Hussinger.

Appendix: Patent Application Procedure at the EPO

Appendix: Patent Application Procedure at the EPO

A brief sketch of the steps from application to grant/refusal decision is given below:Footnote 10

  • After an application is filed, patent examiners prepare a search report that describes the state of the art that is regarded as relevant for the patentability of the invention.Footnote 11

  • 18 months after the priority date of the patent application, which is the first application date of a patent and hence the reference point for the definition of prior art, the patent application is made public along with the search report in the EPO Patent Bulletin.

  • Within 6 months after publication, applicants can request a substantial examination of the application. If an examination is not requested, the patent is deemed withdrawn.

  • If an examination is requested, a decision on the patentability of the invention is made according to the EPO patentability criteria: novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability. The examination can end by a grant or refusal to grant.

  • The applicant can voluntarily withdraw the application at each step of the procedure.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Czarnitzki, D., Hussinger, K. & Schneider, C. R&D Collaboration with Uncertain Intellectual Property Rights. Rev Ind Organ 46, 183–204 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-015-9449-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-015-9449-0

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation